Yeah, some of each!
The student needs to have some idea as to what happens after the book runs out (e.g., Try to attack on the b & c files while keeping your king safe) or the opponent leaves the book (is it his “just as good” preference or did he miss something I can exploit?). I can imagine the negative reactions to this such as ‘my opponents don’t play book, what good is it for me to,’ or lose when playing book (book trap or a position he doesn’t understand) and losing interest.
The fact that you feel the need to put the word understanding in quotes suggests that there was no real understanding present.
Thanks everybody. I decided to get “Winning Chess Openings” by Bill Robertie.
Its a perfect match: Not overly analytical, while giving nice broad explanations of what various openings achieve, and following a game until the middle game, giving explanations every few moves. Plus it give key points on what I should expect with the opening, and I presume the example game would go into a typical middlegame situation.
I did look at another book on openings, but it was a move by move explanation with a diagram for each position, so that was a bit too beginner for my needs.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on this. In a given position, there’s no neon sign saying “Here’s the principle you need to apply in this position.” Don’t waste a tempo on the weakening h3 / …h6, unless it’s a good move. Don’t put your queen in the center of the board: but 3…Nxd4 4.Qxd4 in the Scotch is great for White. The Morphy Defense to the Spanish is an enormous rule-breaker, and best by test. And so on…
So when a beginner overlooks (say) a combination targeting f7, it’s not that the beginner didn’t know that f7 was extremely vulnerable in the opening. It’s that the beginner didn’t know that that principle was paramount in that position. (And yes, chess is a concrete game, but we’re not computers, so we use “principles” as energy-saving shortcuts.)
You don’t have to memorize anything, if you have a reason or purpose for a move to be made in any opening line, especially “main lines”. The positions generated become organic to the mobility of the pieces, and the terrain of the chessboard. Some grandmasters refer to these types of moves as “natural”.
Take a look at Gurevich-Tate from the last round of the Senior Open. Black’s Na6, I can only suspect, is an attempt to avoid “theory”. But there is a price to pay for making such a move. If it is naturally weak, or is not part of a plan, there will be difficulties continuing the game.
(Possibily, Tate should follow through with the a6 knight landing on e6 instead of the pawn, along with g6, h5, Bg7 and Nh6, in some order.)
All the best, Joe
Black did have a reasonable plan in A. Ivanov-Tate: trading the bad bishop. But it does seem way too artificial: too much time & space were conceded. (Emory probably wanted to preempt pawn storms followed by e5-e6.)
So why does Tate’s 3…Na6 (a developing move!) not meet the needs of the position, but Morphy’s 3…a6 (not a developing move!) meet the needs of the position? To me, these are not questions with obvious answers based on general principles.
General principles are always trumped by tactical considerations.
Chess is hard! And helping beginners to make good judgments in the opening isn’t easy.
P.S. I was looking up something else when I came across this biting critique of Chernev’s opening advice, followed by a good-natured appreciation of Chernev.
And here’s the opposite extreme, from Nunn’s Understanding Chess: Move by Move (intended in part as a corrective to the Chernev approach).
The theme of this game–the first in Nunn’s book–is “Get the Pieces Out!”. I understand Nunn’s point–that playing according to the needs of the position trumps mechanical development. But in the first game of an “understanding chess” treatise? Doesn’t one need to know what Euwe taught before one ignores Euwe?
When I see this position (Black to move), my first thought is not “Black has seriously neglected development.” 8…Be7 and Black seems OK.
I think the point here was to find a book to help improve the player’s understanding of opening play in general. since we were talking a 1300-1500 I would assume that the basic [development, king safety, and control of the center] are understood. The next question is to understand piece placement, potential plans of attack, and play on the wings versus play in the center. Also, there is the question of trying to understand what an opponent is up to with a specific opening. How many players understand the concepts behind the line e4 c5, b3? I know of A class players that have had problems against this line.
I don’t teach chess [my fee of $10/hour just doesn’t seem to be of value: get what you pay for?], but I will regularly advise players about playing against the English. I have use this opening as white for over 20 years. I simply tell most players that most times they should treat as they would a d4 opening. Of course that doesn’t apply universally in all cases, but it does make a good rule of thumb for those players who just can’t seem to figure out what to do against 1 c4.
It always boils down to what knowledge a player already has, what knowledge they want to gain, and what knowledge they need to gain. Not always easy to seperate which is which for any player.
Larry Cohen
The “basic” understanding of opening play (we could throw in material force, space, and pawn structure) is not so basic. I have several friends who are smarter than me, who have played a few games, and who have an ELO 800-1000+ points lower than me. And I’ve known these concepts for what seems like all my life, and have lost countless games because of them…
Maybe Lasker was being overoptimistic when he claimed to be able to bring every beginner up to Expert level, but I do think that most intelligent people with some calculation aptitude could make it to 1500 if they desired.
Development, e.g., is understood as a concept by most C/D/E players, but “quality of development” (two pieces focusing on the g7 square, as in Nunn’s example of the Chernin game) is another matter. Euwe has a wonderful chapter in his middle game book on the power of the White king bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal when Black is castled kingside.
For the developing player, something more rigorous than Chernev, more accessible than Nunn (whose books are great!), more contemporary than Fine, Capablanca, & Euwe seems to be called for. The Watson series is very very good, but perhaps one level too sophisticated?
I think the following anecdote is tangentially related to this thread. And if it isn’t, it’s a classic anyway!